- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11375 WP No. 3244 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 3244 OF 2019 (S-PRO) BETWEEN: SRI. C. GURUMURTHY , S/O K.C. NAIK, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF SEED CERTIFICATION (SEED TESTING OFFICER), KARNATAKA SEED CERTIFICATION AGENCY, KAIC PREMISES, OPP: BAPTIST HOSPITAL, BELLARY ROAD, HEBBAL, BENGALURU - 560 024. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYAKARA SHETTY H, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE KARNATAKA STATE SEED CERTIFICATION AGENCY, KAIC PREMISES, OPP: BAPTIST HOSPITAL BELLARY ROAD, HEBBAL, BENGALURU - 560 024, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 2. SRI. V. RANGASWAMY, S/O SRI. VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SEED CERTIFICATION, KARNATAKA SEED CERTIFICATION AGENCY, RAICHUR DIVISION, RAICHUR - 584 101. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11375 WP No. 3244 of 2019 3. SRI. H. RAVINDRANATH, S/O H. SHANKARE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SEED CERTIFICATION, KARNATAKA SEED CERTIFICATION AGENCY, BENGALURU - 560 024. 4. SRI. B.S. LAXMANAMURTHY, S/O SRI. B.G. SRINIVAS REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SEED CERTIFICATION, KARNATAKA SEED CERTIFICATION AGENCY, BENGALURU - 560 024. 5. SRI. S.S. PARASHIVA MURTHY, S/O SRI SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, INCHARGE-DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SEED CERTIFICATION, KARNATAKA SEED & ORGANIC CERTIFICATION AGENCY, OPP: BAPTIST HOSPITAL, BELLARY ROAD, HEBBAL - 560 024. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.H. SOMASEKHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. K.N. MAHABALESHWARA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4; R5 SERVED) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE R-1 WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-A DATED 31.07.2018 PASSED BY R-1 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11375 WP No. 3244 of 2019 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 31.07.2018 passed by respondent No.1, promoting respondent Nos.2 to 4 to the post of Deputy Director by overlooking him. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to consider his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Director with all consequential benefits from 13.10.2018. He also seeks for a direction to respondent No.1 to consider his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Director, which is vacant and filled up by respondent No.5, who is junior than him. 2. The petitioner contends that he joined the service of respondent No.1 as Seed Certification Inspector on 23.11.1990 on daily wage basis. His services was regularized by respondent No.1 as per Board Resolution dated 11.04.1996. The petitioner challenged the promotion granted to one Sri. Y. Basavarajaiah to the post of Deputy Director in WP No.10408/2006 before this - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11375 WP No. 3244 of 2019 Court. The said writ petition was disposed of, directing respondent No.1 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.05.2006 for promotion to the post of Deputy Director. Pursuant to the Order passed in WP No.10408/2006, respondent No.1 considered the representation of the petitioner and issued a letter dated 04.09.2012 stating therein that Sri. Y. Basavarajaiah, who belonged to schedule caste was already promoted to the post of Deputy Director as per the relevant Rules and that the same is in order. It was also stated that the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Director would be considered in accordance with seniority, roster and depending upon the vacancy that may arise. 3. The petitioner contends he is the senior most person under the schedule caste category after Sri. Y. Basavarajaiah. Therefore, his case must have been considered after the retirement of Sri. Y. Basavarajaiah, in the year 2014. However, respondent No.1 did not consider to grant promotion. He contends that seniority - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11375 WP No. 3244 of 2019 list was not prepared properly as it disclosed that the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Director on 23/28.04.2003 and respondent No.4 was promoted on 10.11.2008. However, in the revised column of the said list, the date of promotion of the petitioner and respondent No.4 was interchanged. The petitioner therefore submitted repeated representations to respondent No.1 to consider his case for the post of promotion to the post of Deputy Director, which were never considered. Contrarily, the respondent No.1 had taken a decision to promote respondent No.2, who belonged to schedule tribe, to the post of Deputy Director and thereby overlooked the case of the petitioner. The respondent No.1 contemporaneously promoted respondent Nos.3 and 4 under the general category. He contends that there is one vacancy of the post of Deputy Director and respondent No.5 is placed in charge of the said post, though he is junior than the petitioner. The petitioner has therefore filed this writ petition challenging the promotion granted to respondent No.2 as well as respondent No.3. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11375 WP No. 3244 of 2019 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied if respondent No.1 is directed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 19.12.2018, seeking promotion to the post of Deputy Director. He contends that the petitioner's grievance is only regarding the date of his eligibility for promotion to the post of Deputy Director and therefore, respondent No.1 be directed to consider the representation to fix his date of eligibility for promotion to the post of Deputy Director. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents contend that respondent No.2, who belonged to schedule tribe was entitled to be promoted to the post of Deputy Director and therefore, the promotion granted to him is just and proper and does not warrant any interference. However, he submits that if the petitioner's grievance is only that his representation is not considered, respondent No.1 would consider the same in accordance with law and will pass appropriate order. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11375 WP No. 3244 of 2019 6. Since, the petitioner has now restricted the writ petition to fixing his date of eligibility for promotion to the post of Deputy Director, this writ petition deserves to be disposed of by directing respondent No.1 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.12.2018 and pass appropriate orders. Hence, the writ petition stands allowed on the above terms and respondent No.1 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45 CT: BHK